While a state appeals court recently ruled against a Glendora redevelopment effort, Assemblyman Anthony Adams is maintaining his so-far steadfast support of the city.

Adams, R-Claremont, wrote a letter to the California Supreme Court criticizing a recent California Sixth District Court of Appeals decision that determined Glendora illegally expanded its redevelopment area.

In his Aug. 26 letter, Adams pleaded for the court to review the case. He also questioned whether the state court had a right to undo the state law that approved the expansion.

"This court of appeal opinion takes away the Legislature's constitutional power and gives the courts a much broader role than is permissible to second-guess policy judgments made by the legislature," he wrote.

Adams has long supported the effort to include land along Arrow Highway into a redevelopment area, which would allow the city to siphon property tax into an account that could be used to encourage development.

The Republican assemblyman even wrote a pet bill that passed in 2009 and directed the funds to Glendora.

Adams was especially critical of two points regarding the court's decision.

First, he argued the legislature did sufficient fact-finding regarding its decision to declare Glendora's area in need of relief.

Second, the letter states, the court of appeals overstepped its boundaries in overruling the legislature.

"The court of appeal's suggestion that it gets to decide if the Legislature engaged in sufficient fact-finding to satisfy the court is a gross violation of the separation of powers," Adams writes.

Adams did not respond to a request for comment.

Glendora in 2006 added the Arrow Highway corridor to its redevelopment project areas to extend the life of redevelopment area from 2017 to 2025.

County attorneys sued because the expansion captures taxes that usually go to county programs.

The city lost a court trial in 2008 and then lost an appeal in June. The city petitioned the California Supreme Court to hear the case.

An attorney for Los Angeles County, Thomas Tyrrell, said Adams' letter was troubling.

He successfully has argued that the project failed to establish that the area was shabby enough to qualify for redevelopment-area status.

"There is no such analysis," Tyrrell said. "There simply is no explanation for the need of relief, no mention of the term blight, no mention of the conditions in Glendora in the official legislative documents."

Judges, so far, agree with Tyrrell.

In the appeals court decision, the judge wrote: "Neither party has submitted any document indicating that the Legislature considered any empirical data concerning blight in Glendora."

Glendora City Manager Chris Jeffers said the area is indeed blighted.

"Clearly if you drive along Arrow Highway, you see the blight, see the issues that come with deficiency in infrastructure," he said.

The city had hoped Adams' legislation would solve its problems with the county, but the courts overruled the legislature's decision.

"It was our attempt to pursue every avenue that was available," Jeffers said. "Ultimate goal here is we want to retain local tax dollars for redevelopment in the local community."